The Defendant appealed the trial magistrate’s decision to sustain the charged violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-20-9 (obedience to stop sign), R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-22-22(g) (no seat belt. operator), and R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-22-22(f) (no seat belt, passenger over 13 years old). The Defendant argued that he was not given a fair trial because the trial magistrate did not consider the prosecution’s failure to produce a key witness or key evidence and, additionally, the trial magistrate did not “hear out” his witness. Here, the Defendant requested a police report from the police station, but the police department told him that it did not have a written report of the incident. The Panel noted that the Defendant did not subpoena additional witnesses or file a motion for discovery and, even if he did file a motion for discovery, the trial magistrate could not order the Officer to produce a report that did not exist. The Panel held that the Defendant was not prejudiced by not having additional witnesses or evidence. The Panel further held that the record indicated that the trial magistrate did consider the testimony of both the Officer and Defendant’s wife and, after he considered each witness’s testimony, determined that the Officer’s testimony was credible and sufficient to sustain the charged violations. Accordingly, the Panel affirmed the trial magistrate’s decision to uphold the charged violations.